Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Excuse me Saul, that statement is of course true but to be precise (since the mantra 'correlation is not causation' has been used by some people to disclaim just about everything): correlation is not causation but correlation may most assuredly derive from causation.

Data correlation is what makes us focus our attention upon one aspect and go deeper to the search of a possible causative process.

So the sentence 'Correlation is not necessarily causation' may sound less of an extremely skeptic statement.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yea, I was in a hurry when I posted that and also on a phone, but it was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Essentially saying "the body accumulates less damage in X species when you do Y, resulting in longer lifespan" doesn't tell me anything about the mechanism and is essentially a tautology. It article also begs the question regarding CR actually working in the first place, which it doesn't for example in most subtypes of mice and most other mammals bigger than a rat. But if this research results in an actionable new way to reduce epigenetic drift, I'm all for it ;)